Winter Banter Thread

[Santa Claus]

bastardi, it's right in the name.  it's the whole name actually

[GaWx]

On 3/24/2023 at 5:47 PM, donsutherland1 said:

There's no basis to the claim about volcanoes. In fact, oceans are warming fastest closer to the surface. That's the opposite of what one would expect from the bottom-up warming that would be occurring had volcanoes and geothermal activity been responsible.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content

 

 In his free video today, he said nothing about his NYC 5 BN/20" snow prediction for 3/1-4/15. Instead, it was dominated by his saying that SST increases over the last 40+ years may have been primarily caused by sharp increases in underwater seismic activity. Then he said that CO2 increases resulted from increased SSTs based on a two year lag after the last two superstrong El Niños as opposed to the other way around. I'm just communicating what he said. He's great at cherry picking, which is probably what he's doing here.

 He also said that the prime reason for a trough on the west coast/ridge east coast this winter was a "hotspot" in the N Pacific south of the Aleutians. 

 He said that the strength of the upcoming El Niño is likely going to be dependent on how strong is the Wolf Volcano(es) activity off the west coast of South America. 
 
 Evidently, JB is feeling that underwater volcanic activity may be the most important factor regarding climate change as well as for the shorter term. One thing that's likely biasing him away from the idea of fossil fuel emissions being the primary cause of GW is his having energy clients.

 In summary, I think he's lost it. 

[LibertyBell]

7 hours ago, GaWx said:

 In his free video today, he said nothing about his NYC 5 BN/20" snow prediction for 3/1-4/15. Instead, it was dominated by his saying that SST increases over the last 40+ years may have been primarily caused by sharp increases in underwater seismic activity. Then he said that CO2 increases resulted from increased SSTs based on a two year lag after the last two superstrong El Niños as opposed to the other way around. I'm just communicating what he said. He's great at cherry picking, which is probably what he's doing here.

 He also said that the prime reason for a trough on the west coast/ridge east coast this winter was a "hotspot" in the N Pacific south of the Aleutians. 

 He said that the strength of the upcoming El Niño is likely going to be dependent on how strong is the Wolf Volcano(es) activity off the west coast of South America. 
 
 Evidently, JB is feeling that underwater volcanic activity may be the most important factor regarding climate change as well as for the shorter term. One thing that's likely biasing him away from the idea of fossil fuel emissions being the primary cause of GW is his having energy clients.

 In summary, I think he's lost it. 

why do his energy clients care or want there to be no ACC? because they lose money with warmer winters?

awesome, I hope it continues....nothing better than watching a bunch of crooked traders lose all their money.

 

[donsutherland1]

9 hours ago, GaWx said:

 In his free video today, he said nothing about his NYC 5 BN/20" snow prediction for 3/1-4/15. Instead, it was dominated by his saying that SST increases over the last 40+ years may have been primarily caused by sharp increases in underwater seismic activity. Then he said that CO2 increases resulted from increased SSTs based on a two year lag after the last two superstrong El Niños as opposed to the other way around. I'm just communicating what he said. He's great at cherry picking, which is probably what he's doing here.

 He also said that the prime reason for a trough on the west coast/ridge east coast this winter was a "hotspot" in the N Pacific south of the Aleutians. 

 He said that the strength of the upcoming El Niño is likely going to be dependent on how strong is the Wolf Volcano(es) activity off the west coast of South America. 
 
 Evidently, JB is feeling that underwater volcanic activity may be the most important factor regarding climate change as well as for the shorter term. One thing that's likely biasing him away from the idea of fossil fuel emissions being the primary cause of GW is his having energy clients.

 In summary, I think he's lost it. 

I suspect his refusal to accept the basic physics associated with greenhouse gases is leading him to grab onto anything that he could plausibly use to try to muddy the picture. That even a quick look at the evidence knocks down his latest idea is irrelevant. He selects the data, maps, and ideas that fit his thinking and never looks farther. That approach has severely undermined his forecasting. He either doesn't know or doesn't care. This is a very sad last chapter of his forecasting career.

[GaWx]

5 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

why do his energy clients care or want there to be no ACC? because they lose money with warmer winters?

awesome, I hope it continues....nothing better than watching a bunch of crooked traders lose all their money.

 

 He's often noted having "energy clients" going back many years in his free videos and on Twitter. Since many in the fossil fuel industry due to bias are often at odds with the research that shows the burning of fossil fuels as the primary reason for GW, I figure that some of them likely prefer a meteorologist who doesn't recognize that. With JB knowing that, I'm betting that he figures he'll have a better chance to hold onto these clients and get new ones with his denial of AGW.

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, GaWx said:

 He's often noted having "energy clients" going back many years in his free videos and on Twitter. Since many in the fossil fuel industry due to bias are often at odds with the research that shows the burning of fossil fuels as the primary reason for GW, I figure that some of them likely prefer a meteorologist who doesn't recognize that. With JB knowing that, I'm betting that he figures he'll have a better chance to hold onto these clients and get new ones with his denial of AGW.

The way I see it is that he has made a terrible deal in the closing years of his forecasting career. He has chosen to devote his last forecasting years to an all-consuming crusade of climate change denial. It increasingly appears that he has chosen to become a mercenary for climate change denialism. Much as in war where mercenaries garner little respect and even less sympathy for their having exchanged their ethical principles for profit, the same holds true in a wide range of professional fields, including meteorology.

Today, his forecasts are almost always skewed toward the cold, snowy, or extreme side.  Data, maps, and models are cherry-picked and risk is distorted in order to push the preferred narrative. The implicit idea increasingly appears that he uses his forecasts are used as "proof" that warming is not occurring, internal variability explains all outcomes, etc., all to support his narrative of climate change denial.

Former AccuWeather colleagues have weighed in on Twitter, but to no avail. Some leading climate scientists have also tried to share data with him on Twitter to address his increasingly wild ideas, again to no avail. It seems that no one can influence him. He does not listen. There is no openness on his part to allow the data, evidence, and facts to influence his thinking. He remains unwavering in his crusade to deny climate change.

What about his recent high-profile busts? Very likely, that's not a problem for his fossil fuel clients.

His fossil fuel clients very likely have little or no interest in his forecasting accuracy. They can rely on other forecasters for their weather guidance. In their eyes, his most valuable role is to loudly push climate change denial. That he undertakes that effort at the expense of his professional credibility, forecasting legacy, and personal reputation is wholly irrelevant to those clients.

Those clients are deeply unethical actors. Otherwise, they would not be engaging in their current practices, much less evading responsibility for the harm they are inflicting on ecosystems and future generations. Given that context, they have no hesitation to hire mercenaries who engage in the self-destruction of all of that they once were and all that they are. As long as those individuals keep advancing those clients' interests, the payments keep rolling in. That's the deal. He does not understand its terms. He does not see its nefarious requirements.

That proverbial "bargain with the Devil" is a tragic last chapter in his career. When he leaves the forecasting arena, his past work as an Expert Forecaster at AccuWeather won't be remembered. Most have only been exposed to his recent and present reality. Instead, he will be recalled as one who futilely, stubbornly, and inaccurately forecast extremes, while rejecting climate science despite its being built on a foundation of unequivocal and overwhelming evidence.

He still has some time left to change course. I sincerely hope that he will do so. But that increasingly appears to be as unlikely a scenario as the verification of some of his recent almost still-born extreme forecasts. He ignores his former colleagues. He dismisses the counsel of experts in the field. He tunes out the evidence. Will he listen to anyone?

The reputational destruction his present course entails will be a great tragedy. That unfolding tragedy is already in its advanced stages of evolution.

[rclab]

4 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

The way I see it is that he has made a terrible deal in the closing years of his forecasting career. He has chosen to devote his last forecasting years to an all-consuming crusade of climate change denial. It increasingly appears that he has chosen to become a mercenary for climate change denialism. Much as in war where mercenaries garner little respect and even less sympathy for their having exchanged their ethical principles for profit, the same holds true in a wide range of professional fields, including meteorology.

Today, his forecasts are almost always skewed toward the cold, snowy, or extreme side.  Data, maps, and models are cherry-picked and risk is distorted in order to push the preferred narrative. The implicit idea increasingly appears that he uses his forecasts are used as "proof" that warming is not occurring, internal variability explains all outcomes, etc., all to support his narrative of climate change denial.

Former AccuWeather colleagues have weighed in on Twitter, but to no avail. Some leading climate scientists have also tried to share data with him on Twitter to address his increasingly wild ideas, again to no avail. It seems that no one can influence him. He does not listen. There is no openness on his part to allow the data, evidence, and facts to influence his thinking. He remains unwavering in his crusade to deny climate change.

What about his recent high-profile busts? Very likely, that's not a problem for his fossil fuel clients.

His fossil fuel clients very likely have little or no interest in his forecasting accuracy. They can rely on other forecasters for their weather guidance. In their eyes, his most valuable role is to loudly push climate change denial. That he undertakes that effort at the expense of his professional credibility, forecasting legacy, and personal reputation is wholly irrelevant to those clients.

Those clients are deeply unethical actors. Otherwise, they would not be engaging in their current practices, much less evading responsibility for the harm they are inflicting on ecosystems and future generations. Given that context, they have no hesitation to hire mercenaries who engage in the self-destruction of all of that they once were and all that they are. As long as those individuals keep advancing those clients' interests, the payments keep rolling in. That's the deal. He does not understand its terms. He does not see its nefarious requirements.

That proverbial "bargain with the Devil" is a tragic last chapter in his career. When he leaves the forecasting arena, his past work as an Expert Forecaster at AccuWeather won't be remembered. Most have only been exposed to his recent and present reality. Instead, he will be recalled as one who futilely, stubbornly, and inaccurately forecast extremes, while rejecting climate science despite its being built on a foundation of unequivocal and overwhelming evidence.

He still has some time left to change course. I sincerely hope that he will do so. But that increasingly appears to be as unlikely a scenario as the verification of some of his recent almost still-born extreme forecasts. He ignores his former colleagues. He dismisses the counsel of experts in the field. He tunes out the evidence. Will he listen to anyone?

The reputational destruction his present course entails will be a great tragedy. That unfolding tragedy is already in its advanced stages of evolution.

Good afternoon Don. How sad that the good Mr Bastardi has done, in non meteorological areas, will also go unheralded and fade. It brings to mind quotes from songs and a play. ….  “And you tell me over and over and over again, my friend, you don’t believe we’re on the eve of destruction”, “The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind. The answer is blowin’ in the wind.”What fools theses mortals be”. Stay well, as always …

[GaWx]

1 hour ago, rclab said:

Good afternoon Don. How sad that the good Mr Bastardi has done, in non meteorological areas, will also go unheralded and fade.

 Regarding the good and despite the mess he's been getting his forecasting reputation into in recent years largely due to minimizing the effect of AGW, I'll always have the utmost respect for his being a good father, husband, and family man overall (based on my perception, of course). I've had a good feel for his love of family based especially on the numerous videos I've seen. When they were little, he had both of his kids on a lot of the videos and they seemed happy most of the time and enjoying being with him. In judging the quality of a person (as much as I'm able to do), things like that far outweigh many other aspects.

[donsutherland1]

22 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 Regarding the good and despite the mess he's been getting his forecasting reputation into in recent years largely due to minimizing the effect of AGW, I'll always have the utmost respect for his being a good father, husband, and family man overall (based on my perception, of course). I've had a good feel for his love of family based especially on the numerous videos I've seen. When they were little, he had both of his kids on a lot of the videos and they seemed happy most of the time and enjoying being with him. In judging the quality of a person (as much as I'm able to do), things like that far outweigh many other aspects.

This is true. You have seen it. I have seen it. But many of the Millennials and even Gen-Z who have only been exposed to his more recent post-AccuWeather work have not. Awareness of this other side makes the current evolution all the more painful.

[bluewave]

2 hours ago, GaWx said:

 Regarding the good and despite the mess he's been getting his forecasting reputation into in recent years largely due to minimizing the effect of AGW, I'll always have the utmost respect for his being a good father, husband, and family man overall (based on my perception, of course). I've had a good feel for his love of family based especially on the numerous videos I've seen. When they were little, he had both of his kids on a lot of the videos and they seemed happy most of the time and enjoying being with him. In judging the quality of a person (as much as I'm able to do), things like that far outweigh many other aspects.

I actually started listening to JB on 1010 WINS back in the late 70s here in NY. He was very passionate about the weather. Then I followed him in late 90s to early 00s on accuweather. If you watched the old counterpoint weatherpoint videos, I often would debate points with him through email questions I would send in that the late Ken Reeves would read on air. We emailed back and forth quite a bit. 

I personally never though about climate change until around 2010 when the evidence became hard to miss. It was around this time that JB started making really poor long range calls about future global cooling by 2030 and a return to the 1970s climate. I thought of it mostly as sad to let politics get in the way of weather forecasting. JB seems like he would be a fun person to sit down to dinner and just discuss old storms and weather patterns with. 

I actually agree with some of JB’s criticisms on climate change polices enacted around the world. I think being critical of policy is fair game. But JB mixes the political criticism with the hard science criticism which are two completely different fields. Don’t throw out all the good climate science just because you disagree with political policies. I don’t care what anyones political views are in this country. I can find common points of interest with people from many political backgrounds. 

I think what gets said on these forums finds its way back to JB since he has contacts that  read this forum. I have seen comments he made about some of the posts in here. He said that there are amateurs or citizen scientists on these forums that are as good or better than people he meets on the professional side.

So JB if you are reading this, I welcome you to chime in here. We could probably find something in common to discuss. Or even come out here and share a fine Italian meal. 

[GaWx]

24 minutes ago, bluewave said:

Then I followed him in late 90s to early 00s on accuweather. If you watched the old counterpoint weatherpoint videos, I often would debate points with him through email questions I would send in that the late Ken Reeves would read on air. We emailed back and forth quite a bit. 

 Wow, that's awesome!

 I watched the point counterpoint videos regularly. I remember Ken (RIP) ending them saying "We are the weather warriors". 
I also remember Dr. Joe Sobel, Elliot Abrams, and a few others doing those videos. I especially enjoyed Dr. Joe!

[bluewave]

15 minutes ago, GaWx said:

 Wow, that's awesome!

 I watched the point counterpoint videos regularly. I remember Ken (RIP) ending them saying "We are the weather warriors". 
I also remember Dr. Joe Sobel, Elliot Abrams, and a few others doing those videos. I especially enjoyed Dr. Joe!

Yeah, I had a subscription to accuweather back in my 56K modem pentium 150 CRT screen days. The debates were fun. 

I believe PB that used to post here several winters ago was good friends with him. So he must have showed several threads to JB. I think PB was a trader from Monmouth County. I don’t know what happened to him. 

 

[donsutherland1]

2 hours ago, bluewave said:

I actually started listening to JB on 1010 WINS back in the late 70s here in NY. He was very passionate about the weather. Then I followed him in late 90s to early 00s on accuweather. If you watched the old counterpoint weatherpoint videos, I often would debate points with him through email questions I would send in that the late Ken Reeves would read on air. We emailed back and forth quite a bit. 

I personally never though about climate change until around 2010 when the evidence became hard to miss. It was around this time that JB started making really poor long range calls about future global cooling by 2030 and a return to the 1970s climate. I thought of it mostly as sad to let politics get in the way of weather forecasting. JB seems like he would be a fun person to sit down to dinner and just discuss old storms and weather patterns with. 

I actually agree with some of JB’s criticisms on climate change polices enacted around the world. I think being critical of policy is fair game. But JB mixes the political criticism with the hard science criticism which are two completely different fields. Don’t throw out all the good climate science just because you disagree with political policies. I don’t care what anyones political views are in this country. I can find common points of interest with people from many political backgrounds. 

I think what gets said on these forums finds its way back to JB since he has contacts that  read this forum. I have seen comments he made about some of the posts in here. He said that there are amateurs or citizen scientists on these forums that are as good or better than people he meets on the professional side.

So JB if you are reading this, I welcome you to chime in here. We could probably find something in common to discuss. Or even come out here and share a fine Italian meal. 

Very well said, Bluewave.

[LibertyBell]

6 hours ago, bluewave said:

I actually started listening to JB on 1010 WINS back in the late 70s here in NY. He was very passionate about the weather. Then I followed him in late 90s to early 00s on accuweather. If you watched the old counterpoint weatherpoint videos, I often would debate points with him through email questions I would send in that the late Ken Reeves would read on air. We emailed back and forth quite a bit. 

I personally never though about climate change until around 2010 when the evidence became hard to miss. It was around this time that JB started making really poor long range calls about future global cooling by 2030 and a return to the 1970s climate. I thought of it mostly as sad to let politics get in the way of weather forecasting. JB seems like he would be a fun person to sit down to dinner and just discuss old storms and weather patterns with. 

I actually agree with some of JB’s criticisms on climate change polices enacted around the world. I think being critical of policy is fair game. But JB mixes the political criticism with the hard science criticism which are two completely different fields. Don’t throw out all the good climate science just because you disagree with political policies. I don’t care what anyones political views are in this country. I can find common points of interest with people from many political backgrounds. 

I think what gets said on these forums finds its way back to JB since he has contacts that  read this forum. I have seen comments he made about some of the posts in here. He said that there are amateurs or citizen scientists on these forums that are as good or better than people he meets on the professional side.

So JB if you are reading this, I welcome you to chime in here. We could probably find something in common to discuss. Or even come out here and share a fine Italian meal. 

fwiw climate change policy wont work unless humanity changes the entire way it exists....this all started with the industrial revolution and won't end until it ends.

 

[Brian5671]

On 3/25/2023 at 10:07 AM, IrishRob17 said:

That’s a general rule of thumb. You want consistent soil temps in the 50s which seems to come earlier and earlier each year. That said, under best case scenarios the preventer MAY last four months so if it goes down too early you can still get some late season crabgrass. There are various types of crabgrass that germinate at different times of the season. 

Interesting.  If that's the case (4 months) maybe should wait til mid to late April to apply?

[Brian5671]

13 hours ago, bluewave said:

Yeah, I had a subscription to accuweather back in my 56K modem pentium 150 CRT screen days. The debates were fun. 

I believe PB that used to post here several winters ago was good friends with him. So he must have showed several threads to JB. I think PB was a trader from Monmouth County. I don’t know what happened to him. 

 

He's around, he's on other forums....

[North and West]

I actually started listening to JB on 1010 WINS back in the late 70s here in NY. He was very passionate about the weather. Then I followed him in late 90s to early 00s on accuweather. If you watched the old counterpoint weatherpoint videos, I often would debate points with him through email questions I would send in that the late Ken Reeves would read on air. We emailed back and forth quite a bit. 
I personally never though about climate change until around 2010 when the evidence became hard to miss. It was around this time that JB started making really poor long range calls about future global cooling by 2030 and a return to the 1970s climate. I thought of it mostly as sad to let politics get in the way of weather forecasting. JB seems like he would be a fun person to sit down to dinner and just discuss old storms and weather patterns with. 
I actually agree with some of JB’s criticisms on climate change polices enacted around the world. I think being critical of policy is fair game. But JB mixes the political criticism with the hard science criticism which are two completely different fields. Don’t throw out all the good climate science just because you disagree with political policies. I don’t care what anyones political views are in this country. I can find common points of interest with people from many political backgrounds. 
I think what gets said on these forums finds its way back to JB since he has contacts that  read this forum. I have seen comments he made about some of the posts in here. He said that there are amateurs or citizen scientists on these forums that are as good or better than people he meets on the professional side.
So JB if you are reading this, I welcome you to chime in here. We could probably find something in common to discuss. Or even come out here and share a fine Italian meal. 

Agreed. I feel like people go full medieval on you in a religious sense when you question reactive policy - not the numbers - and accuse you of heresy, or our current heathen term, denier.

Some media types are seemingly carrying the water for their donors, which I’m not against - we all do that for our employers - but I don’t like when it’s not disclosed.

We are changing the planet every day - in some ways better and others worse - as we advance as a civilization. There are costs and benefits in everything we do.

Cobalt and lithium mining and energy infrastructure creation and production and international shipping allows us to communicate in this very group, all of which have negative ecological impacts.

.

[bluewave]

2 hours ago, North and West said:

Agreed. I feel like people go full medieval on you in a religious sense when you question reactive policy - not the numbers - and accuse you of heresy, or our current heathen term, denier.

Some media types are seemingly carrying the water for their donors, which I’m not against - we all do that for our employers - but I don’t like when it’s not disclosed.

We are changing the planet every day - in some ways better and others worse - as we advance as a civilization. There are costs and benefits in everything we do.

Cobalt and lithium mining and energy infrastructure creation and production and international shipping allows us to communicate in this very group, all of which have negative ecological impacts.

.

Yeah, I thought the perspective on climate change from Adam Frank was a more helpful way of looking at it.

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/10/06/446109168/climate-change-is-not-our-fault

It's time to change the way we talk about climate change.

Political leaders have acknowledged human-driven (or "anthropogenic") global warming since 1964 (when President Lyndon Johnson mentioned it in a speech to Congress). Since then, however, we've done almost nothing to address its dangers. As everyone knows, the problem is the political polarization of an issue that is, at its root, a scientific question.

But it's more than that, too.

Our inability to even get past "yes, it's happening" stems from the stories we've been telling about how climate change happened as well as what means about us and for us in terms of the human future.

So, today, I want to hit you with a different story and different perspective on this thing called climate change.

You ready? Here it goes.

It's not our fault.

Climate change is not our fault.

Now, let me be clear about exactly what I mean. Yes, global warming is happening and, yes, it's because of human activity. Specifically, climate change is occurring because the massive use of fossil fuels to power our global, social, industrial, etc., etc., etc., civilization.

That part of the story is just science and it is unassailable. Anyone who says otherwise is living in a fantasyland.

But here's the crux of the issue: 150 years ago when we started building that fossil-fuel based civilization, we had no idea of what we were doing. We'd found this black goo seeping up from the ground and it turned out you could do awesomethings with it. In the winter, you could burn it in a furnace and keep your house warm. In the summer, you could burn it in a power plant and use the electricity to keep your house cool. You could also burn it in an internal combustion engine and travel hundreds of miles in a single day. And all that electricity you were generating from the power plant? You could use that to keep the lights on at night and watch moving pictures of stuff happening on the other side of the planet.

And don't even get me started on fertilizer and the plastics you get from fossil fuels. That stuff is versatile!

Now, the story we usually tell ourselves about the world we built from fossil fuels — and the climate change it created — is that humans are evil and greedy. We're a plague on the planet and global warming is just the way the planet is getting rid of us.

 

But there is another way to tell that story.

We didn't change the climate because we were greedy. We did it by mistake. We did it using the gifts evolution bequeathed to us. Human beings have been building civilizations out of whatever we could get our hands on for at least 8,000 years: stone, rope, canvas, iron.

It's just kind of how we roll.

From my perspective as an astronomer, human beings and the cultures we've created are just another expression of the planet. We're not inherently bad or anti-nature. We're just something the Earth has done and, if you look at it, we've done it pretty well. Without intending to, we changed the atmospheric radiation transport properties of an entire planet.

That's kind of remarkable for a bunch of hairless apes.

So, I think it's time for us to go beyond of these narratives of our inherent greed and unworthiness. They are inherently divisive and they have nothing to do with the science of climate change.

That's because the real truth is this: While triggering climate change might not be our fault, not doing everything we can about it now that we know it's happening — that would be our fault. Worse, it would be our failure as a species.

For all our capacity to render horror and stupidity, we human beings have done some pretty awesome things. Many times across our history we've shown the gift of genius and compassion. That, too, is a planetary expression. So, let's start telling ourselves a different kind of story about the challenge we face.

After all, we'll need everyone on board helping to figure out the next steps in keeping this great project of civilization moving forward.

[bluewave]

8 minutes ago, wishcast_hater said:

 

 

I'm so sick of this BS agenda that is nothing more than excuse to control every aspect of our lives. You can get scientists to endorse anything. For those who are younger,  magazines literally ran advertisements by tobacco companies with quotes from doctors saying smoking is safe. There are thousands of scientists who do not support the man made climate change agenda but they are silenced and that is not true science.  If you shut down debate its no longer science, its an agenda. I have been listening to this nonsense for too long.  Global warming is now climate change but the climate is always changing.

 

1960s - Oil Gone in 10 years

1970s - Another ice age is coming

1980s- Acid Rain will destroy all crops in 10 years and will eat the paint off your cars.

1990s - Ozone layer gone in 10 years

2000's - ice caps gone in 10 years and cities underwater

Nothing happened from these so called EXPERTS except more taxes

The EXPERTS were wrong about COVID at every damn turn and yet "scientists" are still put on this pedestal and given god status.

The politicians are full of crap as they buy ocean front houses and fly in private jets while they enact legislation to remove our freedoms in the name of climate change. Its rules for thee but not for me but you don't see it.  I'm sure I will banned or this post removed for dissenting against the agenda which just showcases the intolerance of those who question.

 

 

The debate about climate change is really about policy and politics and not the science. The models have done a pretty good job forecasting the rise in global temperatures with carbon emissions. But I agree that politicians shouldn’t try to shut down policy debates or seek to curtail individual liberties.

 

[LibertyBell]

3 hours ago, North and West said:

Hard disagree with you. Per bluewave, the science can be right but the policy is wrong. The incessant doom and gloom just tunes people out. It’s like Covid. The policy reactions had very negative societal side effects we’re living with now. In this case and literally in that case, sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.


.

It doesn't matter if people get tuned out or not....the facts are facts.  People like us have no real influence on policy so it doesn't really matter.

The cure may be "worse" than the disease, but really it doesn't matter anyway, since the disease leads to the cure, there really is no other way.  Therefore the cure and the disease are equivalent because one inexorably leads to the other.

In the end we are going to see that the industrial revolution was really a bubble and (the real answer to the Fermi Paradox) is that species who go down this path only exist for a very finite period of time.  My views on this haven't changed in the last 30 years, I had the same views in the 90s that I have today and none of the evidence presented makes me think otherwise.

[LibertyBell]

21 minutes ago, Nibor said:

The repair of the Ozone was from the successful banning of ozone depleting products around the world. It’s something to be celebrated and an example of successful global cooperation. 
 

I don’t have time to address anything else in your ridiculous post. 

Yes, that was the last successful global cooperation we had.

 

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, bluewave said:

Yeah, I thought the perspective on climate change from Adam Frank was a more helpful way of looking at it.

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/10/06/446109168/climate-change-is-not-our-fault

It's time to change the way we talk about climate change.

Political leaders have acknowledged human-driven (or "anthropogenic") global warming since 1964 (when President Lyndon Johnson mentioned it in a speech to Congress). Since then, however, we've done almost nothing to address its dangers. As everyone knows, the problem is the political polarization of an issue that is, at its root, a scientific question.

But it's more than that, too.

Our inability to even get past "yes, it's happening" stems from the stories we've been telling about how climate change happened as well as what means about us and for us in terms of the human future.

So, today, I want to hit you with a different story and different perspective on this thing called climate change.

You ready? Here it goes.

It's not our fault.

Climate change is not our fault.

Now, let me be clear about exactly what I mean. Yes, global warming is happening and, yes, it's because of human activity. Specifically, climate change is occurring because the massive use of fossil fuels to power our global, social, industrial, etc., etc., etc., civilization.

That part of the story is just science and it is unassailable. Anyone who says otherwise is living in a fantasyland.

But here's the crux of the issue: 150 years ago when we started building that fossil-fuel based civilization, we had no idea of what we were doing. We'd found this black goo seeping up from the ground and it turned out you could do awesomethings with it. In the winter, you could burn it in a furnace and keep your house warm. In the summer, you could burn it in a power plant and use the electricity to keep your house cool. You could also burn it in an internal combustion engine and travel hundreds of miles in a single day. And all that electricity you were generating from the power plant? You could use that to keep the lights on at night and watch moving pictures of stuff happening on the other side of the planet.

And don't even get me started on fertilizer and the plastics you get from fossil fuels. That stuff is versatile!

Now, the story we usually tell ourselves about the world we built from fossil fuels — and the climate change it created — is that humans are evil and greedy. We're a plague on the planet and global warming is just the way the planet is getting rid of us.

 

But there is another way to tell that story.

We didn't change the climate because we were greedy. We did it by mistake. We did it using the gifts evolution bequeathed to us. Human beings have been building civilizations out of whatever we could get our hands on for at least 8,000 years: stone, rope, canvas, iron.

It's just kind of how we roll.

From my perspective as an astronomer, human beings and the cultures we've created are just another expression of the planet. We're not inherently bad or anti-nature. We're just something the Earth has done and, if you look at it, we've done it pretty well. Without intending to, we changed the atmospheric radiation transport properties of an entire planet.

That's kind of remarkable for a bunch of hairless apes.

So, I think it's time for us to go beyond of these narratives of our inherent greed and unworthiness. They are inherently divisive and they have nothing to do with the science of climate change.

That's because the real truth is this: While triggering climate change might not be our fault, not doing everything we can about it now that we know it's happening — that would be our fault. Worse, it would be our failure as a species.

For all our capacity to render horror and stupidity, we human beings have done some pretty awesome things. Many times across our history we've shown the gift of genius and compassion. That, too, is a planetary expression. So, let's start telling ourselves a different kind of story about the challenge we face.

After all, we'll need everyone on board helping to figure out the next steps in keeping this great project of civilization moving forward.

He's only partially correct.....yes the earth "created" us but the earth favors biodiversity over one species dominating....any time one species dominates for a significant length of time, it goes extinct, when it exceeds the "tipping point".  That's just the way the planet "rolls" and there's nothing wrong with that; when humanity goes extinct, it's the planet that will benefit from that.

He mentioned plastics, which I found to be horrendous, since we're now finding plastics inside our own body and they create toxicity (for other species and for us.)

[LibertyBell]

I also don't buy this naive "But we didn't know!" excuse he gave.  Maybe you and I didn't know but the people who developed these harmful chemicals sure as hell knew.  Exxon, for example, knew exactly what was going to happen going all the way back to the 70s.  And as far as other chemicals are concerned, companies like 3M and DuPont knew about how awful PFOA were because it made their own employees sick and better solutions were available in the 60s and yet they (literally) chose to bury the evidence and it was only uncovered during a lawsuit. Monsanto, another one of those evil companies, knew exactly how dangerous its pesticides were and yet their chief scientist in a black and white ad said it was safe enough to drink.   Thank goodness for lawsuits to deal with their kind.  Dow tried to manipulate laws to allow spraying of more toxic chlorpyrifos in California about a decade ago. Their kind does indeed deserve to go extinct.

 

[bluewave]

7 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

I also don't buy this naive "But we didn't know!" excuse he gave.  Maybe you and I didn't know but the people who developed these harmful chemicals sure as hell knew.  Exxon, for example, knew exactly what was going to happen going all the way back to the 70s.  And as far as other chemicals are concerned, companies like 3M and DuPont knew about how awful PFOA were because it made their own employees sick and better solutions were available in the 60s and yet they (literally) chose to bury the evidence and it was only uncovered during a lawsuit. Monsanto, another one of those evil companies, knew exactly how dangerous its pesticides were and yet their chief scientist in a black and white ad said it was safe enough to drink.   Thank goodness for lawsuits to deal with their kind.  Dow tried to manipulate laws to allow spraying of more toxic chlorpyrifos in California about a decade ago. Their kind does indeed deserve to go extinct.

 

He was talking about we didn’t know 150 years ago how big fossil fuel energy would become and change the planet. We pretty much just stumbled upon it which was true. Just like we just happened to find agriculture 10,000 ago which shifted civilization from hunter gatherer to settling in cities and building nation states. So the industrial revolution was a natural consequence of agriculture even though it took thousands of years. The oil companies knew about carbon emissions warming the planet since the early 80s. Their internal  models were very accurate.

 

 

[forkyfork]

2 hours ago, bluewave said:

Yeah, I thought the perspective on climate change from Adam Frank was a more helpful way of looking at it.

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/10/06/446109168/climate-change-is-not-our-fault

It's time to change the way we talk about climate change.

Political leaders have acknowledged human-driven (or "anthropogenic") global warming since 1964 (when President Lyndon Johnson mentioned it in a speech to Congress). Since then, however, we've done almost nothing to address its dangers. As everyone knows, the problem is the political polarization of an issue that is, at its root, a scientific question.

But it's more than that, too.

Our inability to even get past "yes, it's happening" stems from the stories we've been telling about how climate change happened as well as what means about us and for us in terms of the human future.

So, today, I want to hit you with a different story and different perspective on this thing called climate change.

You ready? Here it goes.

It's not our fault.

Climate change is not our fault.

Now, let me be clear about exactly what I mean. Yes, global warming is happening and, yes, it's because of human activity. Specifically, climate change is occurring because the massive use of fossil fuels to power our global, social, industrial, etc., etc., etc., civilization.

That part of the story is just science and it is unassailable. Anyone who says otherwise is living in a fantasyland.

But here's the crux of the issue: 150 years ago when we started building that fossil-fuel based civilization, we had no idea of what we were doing. We'd found this black goo seeping up from the ground and it turned out you could do awesomethings with it. In the winter, you could burn it in a furnace and keep your house warm. In the summer, you could burn it in a power plant and use the electricity to keep your house cool. You could also burn it in an internal combustion engine and travel hundreds of miles in a single day. And all that electricity you were generating from the power plant? You could use that to keep the lights on at night and watch moving pictures of stuff happening on the other side of the planet.

And don't even get me started on fertilizer and the plastics you get from fossil fuels. That stuff is versatile!

Now, the story we usually tell ourselves about the world we built from fossil fuels — and the climate change it created — is that humans are evil and greedy. We're a plague on the planet and global warming is just the way the planet is getting rid of us.

 

But there is another way to tell that story.

We didn't change the climate because we were greedy. We did it by mistake. We did it using the gifts evolution bequeathed to us. Human beings have been building civilizations out of whatever we could get our hands on for at least 8,000 years: stone, rope, canvas, iron.

It's just kind of how we roll.

From my perspective as an astronomer, human beings and the cultures we've created are just another expression of the planet. We're not inherently bad or anti-nature. We're just something the Earth has done and, if you look at it, we've done it pretty well. Without intending to, we changed the atmospheric radiation transport properties of an entire planet.

That's kind of remarkable for a bunch of hairless apes.

So, I think it's time for us to go beyond of these narratives of our inherent greed and unworthiness. They are inherently divisive and they have nothing to do with the science of climate change.

That's because the real truth is this: While triggering climate change might not be our fault, not doing everything we can about it now that we know it's happening — that would be our fault. Worse, it would be our failure as a species.

For all our capacity to render horror and stupidity, we human beings have done some pretty awesome things. Many times across our history we've shown the gift of genius and compassion. That, too, is a planetary expression. So, let's start telling ourselves a different kind of story about the challenge we face.

After all, we'll need everyone on board helping to figure out the next steps in keeping this great project of civilization moving forward.

none of that is going to comfort the hundreds of millions of victims in the global south

[bluewave]

9 minutes ago, forkyfork said:

none of that is going to comfort the hundreds of millions of victims in the global south

We use fossil fuels to power our human civilization. Renewables can’t scale up fast enough to make a difference. Nuclear fusion is always 10 -20 years away. So we will probably be relying on fossil fuels much longer than we should. Since there is so much inequality in this world, the people least able to adapt to climate change are often impacted the most. 

[LibertyBell]

23 minutes ago, forkyfork said:

none of that is going to comfort the hundreds of millions of victims in the global south

or the American South

[LibertyBell]

7 minutes ago, bluewave said:

We use fossil fuels to power our human civilization. Renewables can’t scale up fast enough to make a difference. Nuclear fusion is always 10 -20 years away. So we will probably be relying on fossil fuels much longer than we should. Since there is so much inequality in this world, the people least able to adapt to climate change are often impacted the most. 

we need to talk about something people are unwilling to talk about-- human population simply increased too quickly, either we stabilize the population or nature will stabilize it for us.  We get to chose (only for a limited amount of time though.)  Honestly, the pandemic offered us a window into an opportunity for a better future with lower air and water pollution and lower emissions.  As I said, either we chose this future or nature will choose it for us.  We have a limited window of time to make that choice before it's too late.

 

[LibertyBell]

39 minutes ago, bluewave said:

He was talking about we didn’t know 150 years ago how big fossil fuel energy would become and change the planet. We pretty much just stumbled upon it which was true. Just like we just happened to find agriculture 10,000 ago which shifted civilization from hunter gatherer to settling in cities and building nation states. So the industrial revolution was a natural consequence of agriculture even though it took thousands of years. The oil companies knew about carbon emissions warming the planet since the early 80s. Their internal  models were very accurate.

 

 

This seems to be the case with every large corporation in every industry, they always cover up anything that will curtail their profits.  It's the definition of corporate psychopathy

 

[IrishRob17]

5 hours ago, Brian5671 said:

Interesting.  If that's the case (4 months) maybe should wait til mid to late April to apply?

I've applied as late as the first week in May but typically shoot for mid April.